KINFRA INTERNATIONAL APPAREL PARKS LTD, Trivandrum V. ITO, Trivandrum

ITA 298/COCH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64847 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SREENIVASU KOLLIPAKA
• Assessee Lawyers: A S NARAYANAMURTHY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 263; 2

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.297 & 298/COCH/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKARA N(AM) I.T.A NO. 297 & 298/COCH/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08) KINFRA INTERNATIONAL APPAREL PARK LTD VS THE ITO, WD .1(1) PARK OFFICE, ST XAVIERS COLLEGE (PO) TRIVANDRUM THUMBA, TRIVANDRUM PAN : AABCK7521L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.S. NARAYANAMURTHY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SREENIVASU KOLLIPAKA DATE OF HEARING : 18-09-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-10-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THESE APPEALS BY THE TAXPAYER ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 03-03-2011 PASSED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISS IONER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. SHRI A.S. NARAYANAMURTHY, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE TAXPAYER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER WHIL E EXERCISING HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE, THE TAXPAYER CLAIMED PRE-OPERATI VE EXPENSES U/S 35D OF THE 2 ITA NO.297 & 298/COCH/2011 ACT WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTE R CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE LD.REPRESENT ATIVE, THE TAXPAYER HAS FILED ALL THE MATERIALS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFO RE, THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER TO EXERCISE HIS JURISDI CTION U/S 263 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF KUTTUKKARAN TRADING VENTURES IN ITA NO.286/COCH/2010 DATED 04-10-2011, TH E LD.REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THIS TRIB UNAL FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER T O REVISE THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. WE HEARD, SHRI SRINIVASU KOLLIPAKKU, THE LD.DR ALSO. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF LOWE R AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPLICATIO N OF MIND ON THE MATERIAL SAID TO BE FILED BY THE TAXPAYER DOES NOT REFLECT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING A QUASI JUDICIAL ORDER, THE APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL REFLECT IN THE ORDER ITSELF . THE REASON FOR THE CONCLUSION OR THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY S HALL BE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE REASON FOR A PARTICULAR DECI SION CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED EITHER BY WAY OF FILING AFFIDAVIT OR DOCUMENT IN AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE VERY PURPOSE OF PROVIDING APPEAL / REVISIONAL JURISDICTI ON UNDER THE ACT IS TO ENSURE FAIRNESS IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING AU THORITY. THE FAIRNESS CAN BE ENSURED PROVIDED THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY DRAFTS THE ORDER IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE APPLICATION OF MIND IS REFLECTED IN THE ORDER ITSEL F. THE EXAMINATION OF MATERIAL AND THE REASONS FOR CONCLUSION SHALL ALSO BE REFLEC TED IN THE ORDER ITSELF. THIS ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS SUNIL KUMAR GOEL (2005) 274 ITR 53 (P&H). THE 3 ITA NO.297 & 298/COCH/2011 PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE J UDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN MUKHERJEE (S.N.) VS UOI (1990) AIR 1990 SC 1984 HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: IN S.N. MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1990 SC 1 984, A CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT DISCUSSED T HE DEVELOPMENT OF LAW ON THIS SUBJECT IN INDIA, AUSTRA LIA, CANADA, ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND AFTER MAKING REFERENCE TO A LARGE NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, THEIR LORDSHIPS CULLED OUT THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS (PAGE 1995): THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE IND ICATE THAT WITH REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENT TO RECORD REASONS TH E APPROACH OF THIS COURT IS MORE IN LINE WITH THAT OF THE AMERICA N COURTS. AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS WEIGHED WITH THE COURT FOR HOLDING THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS MUST RECORD THE REASONS FOR ITS DECISION, IS THAT SUCH A DECISION IS SUBJECT TO THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION O F THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS THE SUPE RVISORY JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURTS UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTIT UTION AND THAT THE REASONS, IF RECORDED, WOULD ENABLE THIS COURT OR TH E HIGH COURTS TO EFFECTIVELY EXERCISE THE APPELLATE OR SUPERVISORY P OWER. BUT THIS IS NOT THE SOLE CONSIDERATION. THE OTHER CONSIDERATIO NS WHICH HAVE ALSO WEIGHED WITH THE COURT IN TAKING THIS VIEW ARE THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING REASONS WOULD (I) GUARANTE E CONSIDERATION BY THE AUTHORITY; (II) INTRODUCE CLARITY IN THE DEC ISIONS; AND (III) MINIMIZE CHANCES OF ARBITRARINESS IN DECISION MAKING . IN THIS REGARD A DISTINCTION HAS BEEN DRAWN BETWEEN ORDINARY COURT S OF LAW AND TRIBUNALS AND AUTHORITIES EXERCISING JUDICIAL FUNCT IONS ON THE GROUND THAT A JUDGE IS TRAINED TO LOOK AT THINGS OBJECTIVEL Y UNINFLUENCED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY OR EXPEDIENCY WHEREAS AN E XECUTIVE OFFICER GENERALLY LOOKS AT THINGS FROM THE STAND POINT OF PO LICY AND EXPEDIENCY. REASONS, WHEN RECORDED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHOR ITY IN AN ORDER PASSED BY IT WHILE EXERCISING QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS, WOULD NO DOUBT FACILITATE THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTIO N BY THE APPELLATE OR SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY. BUT THE OTHER CONSIDERATION S, REFERRED TO ABOVE, WHICH HAVE ALSO WEIGHED WITH THIS COURT IN H OLDING THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY MUST RECORD REASONS FOR IT S DECISION, ARE OF NO LESS SIGNIFICANCE. THESE CONSIDERATIONS SHOW TH AT THE RECORDED 4 ITA NO.297 & 298/COCH/2011 OF REASONS BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY SERVICES A SALUTARY PURPOSE, NAMELY, IT EXCLUDES CHANCES OF ARBITRARINE SS AND ENSURES A DEGREE OF FAIRNESS IN THE PROCESS OF DECISION-MAKING. THE SAID PURPOSE WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL DECISIONS AND IT S APPLICATION CANNOT BE CONFINED TO DECISIONS WHICH ARE SUBJECT T O APPEAL, REVISION OR JUDICIAL REVIEW. IN OUR OPINION, THERE FORE, THE REQUIREMENT THAT REASONS BE RECORDED SHOULD GOVERN THE DECISIONS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY EXERCISING QUASI-JUD ICIAL FUNCTIONS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE DECISION IS SU BJECT TO APPEAL, REVISION OR JUDICIAL REVIEW. IT MAY, HOWEVER, BE A DDED THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THE REASONS SHOULD BE AS ELABORATE AS IN THE DECISION OF A COURT OF LAW. THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE RE ASONS WOULD DEPEND ON PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. WHAT IS NECESSARY IS THAT THE REASONS ARE CLEAR AND EXPLICIT SO AS TO IN DICATE THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE POINTS IN CONTROVERSY. THE NEED FOR RECORDING OF REASONS IS GREATER IN A C ASE WHERE THE ORDER IS PASSED AT THE ORIGINAL STAGE. THE APPELLA TE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY, IF IT AFFIRMS SUCH AN ORDER, NEED NOT GI VE SEPARATE REASONS IF THE APPELLATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY AGREES WIT H THE REASONS CONTAINED IN THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. IN TESTEELS LTD V. N.M. DESAI (1970) 37 FJR 7; AIR 1970 GUJ 1, A FULL BENCH OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS MADE AN E XTREMELY LUCID ENUNCIATION OF LAW ON THE SUBJECT AND WE CAN DO NO BETTER THAN TO EXTRACT SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE DECISI ON. THE SAME ARE (HEADNOTE OF AIR 1970 (GUJ)): THE NECESSITY OF GIVING REASONS FLOWS AS A NECESS ARY COROLLARY FROM THE RULE OF LAW WHICH CONSTITUTES ON E OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL SET-UP. THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES HAVING A DUTY TO ACT JUDICIALLY CANNOT THEREFORE DECIDE ON CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY OR EXPEDIENCY. THEY MU ST DECIDE THE MATTER SOLELY ON THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE, SOLELY ON THE MATERIAL BEFORE THEM AND APART FROM ANY EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS BY APPLYING PRE-EXISTING LEGAL NORMS TO FACTUAL SITUATIONS. NOW THE NECESSITY OF GIVING REASONS IS AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE OBSERVANCE OF THE DUTY TO ACT J UDICIALLY. IT INTRODUCES CLARITY, CHECKS THE INTRODUCTION OF EXTRA NEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND EXCLUDES OR, AT ANY R ATE, MINIMIZES ARBITRARINESS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. 5 ITA NO.297 & 298/COCH/2011 ANOTHER REASON WHICH COMPELS MAKING OF SUCH AN ORDE R IS BASED ON THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH IS POSS ESSED BY THE HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THESE COURTS HAVE THE POWE R UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS TO QUASH BY CERTIORARI A QUASI-JUDICIAL ORDER MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND THIS POWER OF REVIEW CAN BE EFFECTIVELY EXERCISED ONLY IF THE ORDER IS A SPEAKING ORDER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER, THE SAID COURT S CANNOT EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW. THE HIG H COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE POWERLESS TO INTERFERE SO AS TO KEEP THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE LAW . THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD BE STULT IFIED AND NO REDRESS BEING AVAILABLE TO THE CITIZEN, THERE WOULD BE INSIDIOUS ENCOURAGEMENT TO ARBITRARINESS AND CAPRICE. IF THI S REQUIREMENT IS INSISTED UPON, THEN, THEY WILL BE SUBJECT TO JUDICI AL SCRUTINY AND CORRECTION. IF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS SCRUTINIZED IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PROPOSITION OF LAW, WE DO NOT FIND ANY DIFFICULTY IN SETTING ASIDE THE SAME ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE FLOWERY LANGUAGE USE D BY THE TRIBUNAL TO JUSTIFY ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESPONDENTS PLEA THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE LAW DOES NOT WARRANT OUR AFFIRMATION. IN O UR OPINION, THE TRIBUNAL WAS DUTY BOUND TO RECORD TANGIBLE AND COGE NT REASONS FOR UPSETTING WELL REASONED ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED ITS ATTENTION TO THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 271D AND 2 71E OF THE ACT IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE SAME FAMIL Y AND THEN DECIDED BY A REASONED ORDER WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAD BEEN ABLE TO MAKE OUT A CASE FOR DELETING THE PENALTY. T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE CLEARLY REFLECTED THE A PPLICATION OF MIND BY THE LEARNED MEMBERS. 4. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE APEX COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION VS COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX (2008) 306 ITR 52 (SC). THE APEX COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH HONBLE M R. JUTICE DR ARIJIT PASAYAT HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS AT PAGE 53 OF THE ITR: 6 ITA NO.297 & 298/COCH/2011 WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNE D ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAD DISPOSED OF THE PROCEEDINGS STATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN THIS CASE UNDER SECTION 271C READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ARE HEREBY DROPPED. ACCORD INGLY TO THE HIGH COURT, THERE WAS NO BASIS INDICATED FOR DROPPI NG THE PROCEEDINGS. THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO CERTAIN ASPE CTS AND HELD THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE I.T. ACT) WAS IMPERMISSI BLE WHEN CONSIDERED IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE MATERIALS PURPOR TEDLY PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHAT THE HIGH COURT HAS DONE IS TO REQUIRE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PAS S A REASONED ORDER. THE HIGH COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRI BUNAL COULD NOT HAVE SUBSTITUTED ITS OWN REASONINGS WHICH WERE REQU IRED TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO TH E ASSESSEE, ALL RELEVANT ASPECTS WERE PLACED FOR CONSIDERATION AND IF THE OFFICER DID NOT RECORD REASONS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE FAULTED. WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE AT THIS STAGE. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT WHEN THE MATTER BE TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON REMAND, IT SHALL BE HIS DUTY T O TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RELEVANT ASPECTS INCLUDING THE MATE RIALS, IF ANY, ALREADY PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND PASS A REASONED ORDER. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE ASSESSING AU THORITY IS BOUND TO DRAFT THE ORDER IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE APPLICATION OF MIN D TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE CONCLUSIONS AND REASONS OF A PARTICU LAR DECISION SHALL BE REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPLICATION OF MIND AND THE REASONS FOR THE CONCLUS ION SHALL ENSURE FAIRNESS IN THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. APART FROM TH AT, IT ALSO ENABLES THE APPELLATE / REVISIONAL AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE THEIR JURISDICTI ON IN A FAIR AND REASONABLE MANNER. 6. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KUTTUKKARAN TRADING VENTURES (SUPRA). NO DOUBT, TH IS TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER BUT IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE 7 ITA NO.297 & 298/COCH/2011 APPLICATION OF MIND OR THE REASON FOR THE CONCLUSIO N REACHED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. MO REOVER, IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPO RATION (SUPRA) AND THE JUDGMENTS OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNIL KUMAR GOEL (SUPRA) WE FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONE R HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HOWEVER, WE F IND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MODIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER HIS ORDER WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY BY THE A SSESSING AUTHORITY. THE VERY FACT THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY OR HE HAD NO OCCASION TO DISCUSS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD MAY BE A JUSTIFICATION FOR EXERCISING THE REVISIONAL POWERS U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HOWEVER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER CANNOT STEP INTO THE SH OES OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND DECIDE THE MATTER HIMSELF WITHOUT ALL OWING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE MATTER. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT IN THE HIERARCHY, FIRST THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS TO APP LY HIS MIND TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THEREFORE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIO NER OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE MATERIALS AVAI LABLE ON RECORD AND DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUN ITY TO THE TAXPAYER. IN THIS CASE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER, INSTEAD OF D IRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE MATTER, HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING A UTHORITY TO DECIDE THE MATTER AS PER THE DECISION ARRIVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE C OMMISSIONER. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN ALL FAIRNESS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS TO FIRST EXAMINE THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CO MMISSIONER, WE SET ASIDE THE DIRECTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER AND DI RECT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER U/S 35D OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL 8 ITA NO.297 & 298/COCH/2011 AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE TAXPAYER WITHO UT BEING INFLUENCED BY ANY OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISS IONER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE APPEAL OF THE TA XPAYER IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 12 TH OCTOBER, 2012 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH